Commission reads stipulation imposing reprimand for King County District Court judge

The Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct on April 24 read into the record a stipulation and agreement that documents findings that a King County District Court judge engaged in inappropriate personal conduct toward a courthouse clerk and sets a formal reprimand as the agreed sanction.

Ramon Alvarez, the commission’s vice chair, read the stipulation describing repeated personal communications, an offer of a massage in chambers on May 5, 2023, and a later in‑chambers embrace the clerk characterized in the document as unwanted and distressing. "She described a full‑body embrace … with the respondent's hand so low on her back that it was touching her rear," Alvarez read. The stipulation says the clerk experienced panic attacks and repeated vomiting after the encounter and later reported the conduct to human resources; the judge was reassigned the day after the clerk met with HR.

The stipulation alleges that the judge’s conduct violated the Code of Judicial Conduct—citing canon 1, rules 1.1 and 1.2, and canon 2, rules 2.3(b) and 2.8(b—and summarizes the commission’s weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors. The document records the respondent’s written answer (filed Jan. 24, 2025 and supplemented May 8, 2025), in which he acknowledged personal losses since 2020, said he did not intend harm, and expressed remorse while also noting he now better understands the power dynamics involved.

Under the agreement read to the commission, the parties stipulated to the imposition of a reprimand. The stipulation explains that a reprimand requires the judge to appear personally before the commission, to read and familiarize himself with the code of judicial conduct and provide written confirmation within one month of entry of the stipulation, and to complete remedial training on harassment and gender dynamics (approved in advance by the commission chair or designee) within one year at the judge’s expense. The stipulation also states that, by entering the agreement, the respondent waived procedural and appeal rights under the commission’s rules.

The commission read the stipulation into the business‑session record and offered the respondent an opportunity to comment; no remarks from the respondent were recorded at that time. The stipulation states it "shall not become effective until approved by the Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct," and the reading at the April 24 business session placed the agreement into the public record pending whatever formal approval steps the commission follows.

The commission’s statement and the stipulation emphasize the role of the workplace power differential between judicial officers and court staff in assessing impropriety and harm. The commission’s reading noted that the judge has no prior disciplinary history, that he cooperated with the proceeding, and that he has sought assistance through the judicial assistance program, which the stipulation lists as mitigation when weighing the appropriate sanction.

Next procedural steps recorded in the session: the stipulation was entered into the public business‑session record and will take effect only after any required formal approval process by the commission.